Punishment for murder
Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 103, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 302 Punishment for murder Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murder. | Death or imprisonment for life and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
| Murder by group of five or more persons. | Death or with imprisonment for life and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the test to be applied is legal insanity, not medical insanity. Legal insanity requires incapacity to know the nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law. The burden on the accused is to establish this on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial point of time is the moment of commission of the offense. Evidence of conduct before, during, and after the offense, combined with medical evidence of mental disorder, is relevant in determining legal insanity. If credible medical evidence establishes mental disorder at the time of the offense, and the accused subsequently becomes fit to stand trial, this is indicative of prior insanity. The trial court and appellate court must apply a preponderance of probabilities standard and not reject the insanity defense merely because the nature of the act appears intentional or because some witnesses did not observe abnormality.
On this section: Provision for punishment of murder. The appellant was originally convicted under this section, which was set aside by the Supreme Court upon finding him legally insane at the time of the offense.
-
Hussain vs Union of India
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be denied due to lack of resources. When criminal trials or appeals remain pending for extended periods without fault of the accused, the accused is entitled to either expedited trial completion within specified timelines (6 months for magisterial trials and 2 years for sessions trials with accused in custody; 5 years for appeals) or bail. High Courts are constitutionally obligated to issue directions to subordinate courts ensuring these timelines are met, and to monitor compliance through appropriate action plans and judicial performance assessments. The State is required to augment judicial infrastructure, including appointing additional judges, establishing forensic laboratories, and digitizing case records, to fulfill this constitutional obligation. Undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention exceeding the likely sentence upon conviction must be released on personal bond. These are mandatory obligations, not discretionary matters.
On this section: Murder charge under which second appellant Aasu was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; referenced as serious offence category
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. While a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of an acquitted person, the paramount consideration is substantial justice and avoiding miscarriage of justice from acquitting the guilty. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence, acquittal should not be disturbed. However, when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence and deduction of conclusions, the appellate court must interfere. Ocular (eyewitness) evidence has greater evidentiary value than medical evidence unless the contradiction is so extreme that medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true. The non-examination of a kidnapped and intimidated witness cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Evidence of eyewitnesses, though interested parties, is trustworthy when reliable and internally consistent. Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony spanning long examination periods are immaterial when the core narrative remains consistent and corroborated.
On this section: Murder - applied for conviction of three murders committed in the violent attack; discussed whether death sentence should be awarded
-
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, the court must conduct a simplified inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, following a strict hierarchical order of evidence: (1) Matriculation or equivalent certificates, (2) Date of birth certificate from school first attended (other than play school), (3) Birth certificate from corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat, or (4) Medical opinion only in the absence of the foregoing. Once any of the first three categories of documents is produced and not controverted, the court shall accept them as conclusive proof of age and pass a finding of juvenility if the age is below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The court shall not conduct investigative or trial-like inquiries, shall not require witnesses to be examined merely because they made entries in documents, shall not conduct medical tests unless the documents are found to be fabricated or manipulated, and shall complete the age determination within 30 days. A school admission register produced by the school principal is relevant and conclusive evidence of date of birth when consistently entered and not controverted, and courts shall not second-guess such entries by conducting fishing inquiries or requiring corroborating evidence such as horoscopes. The date relevant for determining juvenility is the date of commission of the alleged offence, and once established, the juvenile is entitled to all benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act regardless of when the claim is raised.
On this section: Applied to the offence for which the appellant was charged and convicted.
-
Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving identification evidence, when multiple independent eyewitnesses positively identify the accused in court with specific reference to identifying features (such as distinctive clothing) and distinctive acts performed during the crime, and when such in-court identification is corroborated by: (a) participation in prior test identification parade conducted within reasonable time of occurrence (24 days) where accused did not challenge procedures; (b) recovery of vehicle and weapons linked to appellant; (c) credible evidence of previous acquaintance supporting enduring impress of identity; (d) consistent medical/forensic evidence; and (e) circumstances of arrest at scene with weapons, the absence of formal cross-examination of key witness (due to unavoidable circumstances) or initial non-mention in complaint does not vitiate the trial or conviction. The purpose of investigation is to set law in motion and collect evidence; if investigative procedures are thereafter followed lawfully and evidence collected is sufficiently corroborated, conviction can be upheld despite technical defects in initiation of investigation.
On this section: Murder - applied to convict appellant and co-accused for intentionally causing death of Shanu Komarpant through brutal assault resulting in 36 injuries
-
State of Karnataka vs Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A child witness of tender age can testify in criminal proceedings if the child possesses the intellectual capacity to understand the questions put to the witness and to give rational answers thereto. The trial judge, after conducting preliminary examination to test the child's understanding, demeanor, and grasp of truth and its consequences, is the appropriate authority to determine competency. The evidence of a competent child witness cannot be rejected merely on the presumption that the child has been tutored because of staying with or being examined by an educated relative such as an advocate. If after careful scrutiny of child witness evidence, the court finds an impress of truth therein, the evidence can form the basis of conviction. When a High Court reviews a trial court's conviction, it must provide reasoned judgment indicating specific deficiencies in the trial court's assessment rather than setting aside the conviction abruptly without explanation.
On this section: Punishment for murder. Applied to conviction of accused for strangulation death of Annapurna.
-
Rajni vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When documentary evidence in the form of school certificate and birth certificate from municipal authority showing date of birth is available, the Juvenile Justice Board cannot order medical examination for age determination. The hierarchy prescribed under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 must be strictly followed: school/matriculation certificate first, then birth certificate from corporation/municipality/panchayat, and only in absence of these can medical examination be ordered. The date of birth mentioned in school certificate is determinative of age and cannot be ignored. Further, the Juvenile Justice Board has no power of review under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to revisit its earlier acceptance of a date of birth in a previous proceeding. Additionally, when a juvenile accused of heinous offence has been on bail for more than three years without evidence of misuse, interference with bail order is not warranted unless there is evidence of misuse of liberty.
On this section: Murder charge against accused; classified as heinous offence
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Murder; appellant was charged under this section in connection with custodial death of Ram Kishore
-
The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Vijayanagaram Chinna Reddappa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a life convict is subsequently convicted for another offense and sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the new sentence runs concurrently with the life sentence under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C., not consecutively under Section 426(2)(b) Cr.P.C., because a life sentence has no 'unexpired' portion in the technical sense contemplated by Section 426(2)(b). Therefore, the application of Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. is the correct approach for determining sentence computation in such cases.
On this section: Murder charge; the original conviction was under this section for the murder that occurred on May 27, 2001
-
Chherturam @ Chainu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The nature, number, and location of injuries inflicted during a sudden fight, even without premeditation, can demonstrate cruelty and brutality such that Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC does not apply. When injuries are inflicted on vital body parts in a merciless manner with repeated blows that make survival impossible, the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, and intoxication does not provide a defense under Section 86 IPC. The conviction for murder must be upheld despite the absence of prior premeditation when the factual circumstances demonstrate an endeavor to end the victim's life through brutal and cruel means.
On this section: Punishment for murder - life imprisonment or death penalty with fine
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Offence of murder - the charge from which the accused were discharged; the Court held that discharge was premature and not justified at the charge-framing stage
-
Roshan vs The State ( Nct of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the sole eyewitness testimony in a criminal case is that of a stock witness of the police whose credibility is suspect, and such testimony lacks corroboration from any other reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden is not on the accused to prove innocence. Common intention under Section 34 IPC must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as a foundational requirement, and mere presence at the scene of crime without more does not establish common intention. The quality of evidence, not the quantity of witnesses, is the criterion for conviction.
On this section: Charge of murder against the appellants; the Court examined whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt
-
Somesh Chaurasia vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person convicted of a serious offence under Section 302 IPC and released on bail during suspension of sentence is subsequently implicated in another serious offence (particularly murder) committed during the period of bail, the bail must be cancelled as the accused has misused the liberty granted to him. The High Court must apply stringent legal principles governing post-conviction bail and cannot dispose of bail cancellation applications by merely directing further investigation without considering the gravity of allegations, criminal antecedents, and material facts indicating abuse of process. The cancellation of bail is warranted when there is evidence of misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, and the court must ensure that the rule of law is preserved and that no person, regardless of political connections, is shielded from the administration of criminal justice.
On this section: Offence of murder - the second respondent was convicted under this section for a prior murder and was implicated in another murder while on bail; the Court emphasized that conviction under Section 302 warrants stringent conditions for bail suspension
-
Anil S/o Shivshankar Rahule vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. , Hudkeshwar, Nagpur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When circumstantial recoveries under panchanama contain fatal and physically impossible contradictions, such as identical timing and witnesses at geographically distant locations, they cannot be prima facie relied upon to deny the liberty of bail to an accused.
On this section: Punishment for Murder; applied to evaluate the gravity of the offence charged.
-
Govind Ramnath Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused against whom similar allegations are made have been released on bail and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has undergone significant incarceration, the principle of parity applies.
On this section: Punishment for Murder.
-
Shiv Saran Singh vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 302, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A witness cannot be convicted under Section 350 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance before court without establishing that he failed to appear without just excuse, and the court must follow the summary trial procedure prescribed under Section 350 Cr.P.C., including providing proper notice and opportunity to show cause before passing a conviction order.
On this section: Murder charge in the original case (State vs. Ram Das) for which appellant was summoned as witness
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… In the circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that there was sufficient information and material before the Delhi Police to have registered an FIR for the offence under section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS") i.e., for murder regardless of the fact that the dead body was recovered outside their territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, since the predominant body of evidence was discovered in  is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 302, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provision for punishment of murder. The appellant was originally convicted under this section, which was set aside by the Supreme Court upon finding him legally insane at the time of the offense. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2026.
Is Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 103, section 103 BNS, section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 103(1) and bns 103(2). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs The State of Goa Home Department Secretary (12 Jan 2023).
What should I read with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 302 (Punishment for murder), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called murder or mob lynching, and cited as BNS 103, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.